Upon the presentation of the budget last week, my first reaction was to assess the implications of the provisions therein from a personal viewpoint. I can honestly say that I found it to be extremely positive and forward looking, with the correct signals being sent across the board. As a politician, I also have to look at the budget from a wider perspective, and for that I needed to follow closely the debate that subsequently took place in Parliament.
The budget is a serious matter and should therefore be treated as such. It is a pity, although no great surprise, that the leader of the Opposition has not yet woken up to the fact that you just cannot pull the wool over people’s eyes and try to get them to believe things that are outright fabrications. The serious and ordered presentation of the budget by the Prime Minister was contrasted sharply by the tone and nature of the leader of the Opposition’s reply. In the formulation of this reply, the presence of any attempt at constructive comment was firmly blocked, and the speech was presented solely as a gimmicky attempt to distort facts and hoodwink listeners in what has now become the established trademark of the opposition’s strategy.
The leader of the Opposition selectively quoted certain figures from official statistics in order to alter the impression given by the Prime Minister’s presentation. Let me give one example to illustrate this. Dr Sant referred to the agricultural and fisheries sector, and on the basis of a reported 2.8 per cent drop in production of fruit and vegetables when comparing the first nine months of 2005, with the same period of 2004, he claimed that the government had betrayed this sector regarding the safeguard clause where it concerns the livelihood of workers in this field. The 2.8 per cent drop quoted comes from a National Statistics Office release dated 1 November 2005. What the leader of the Opposition conveniently omitted from his delivery was that the drop in production, due probably to natural factors such as the weather, etc., did not result in a loss of income but, on the contrary, an increase in net income of over Lm100,000 over the same period. In the same sector, he also came up with the statement that although fishermen had had increased sales of fish to the local market, exports of catches had fallen. This statement makes so little sense, and is so simplistic and puerile, that it warrants no further comment.
Such an approach to the serious matter of a budget debate does not reflect at all well on Dr Sant’s perception of the ability of the Maltese people to grasp facts. The Opposition still has ingrained in its make-up the residual effect of endless budgets that were focused around the price of canned tuna, or the creation of a series of labour corps which, with their eventual absorption into the ranks of Government employees, have contributed in no small way to the inflated wages bill for the public service. Very often we tend to forget that the stopgap approach to managing unemployment caused by a stagnant economy, practised by the MLP government of the 1970s and 1980s included this wholesale employment of young people in the Labour Corps, and Pijunieri and what have you, not to mention the last ditch effort immediately prior to the 1987 election, when hundreds of people were employed with the Government and its entities in the last few days of the MLP’s time in government. At the time of these actions, which have had such long-term effects, Dr Sant was president of the MLP!
It would therefore be hilarious, were it not so tragic, to hear him say that a budget that increases investment in education, encourages alternative sources of energy, does not increase or introduce new taxation, is ‘bla pjan, bla vizjoni u bla sens ta’ fiducja fil-futur ta’ pajjizna’. This is waffle, pure and simple, and is nothing more than is to be expected from Dr Sant when he is faced with a budget that shows how the business of government fits the PN like a glove.
The Prime Minister’s reply on Wednesday clearly brings this out. He pointed out the opportunistic way in which the leader of the Opposition uses whatever he hears, be it from whatever source – credible or not, and chooses to listen to and believe only that which suits his purpose of drawing a dark picture.
He then went on to show how the Nationalist Government is working on a goal attainment plan of action. The Prime Minister spoke at length about the progress being achieved and the objectives being reached. Unlike Dr Sant’s, the Prime Minister’s voice is not a lone one in the self-imposed wilderness of his own fabrications. Lawrence Gonzi is echoed by the results which, as we all know, speak for themselves. Then it is up to each and every one of us to fathom out for ourselves who respects and works for the national interest, and who, on the other hand, does not give a hoot for the truth in trying to score cheap political points.
Dr Victor Scerri is President of the Nationalist Party General Council